An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own"


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...n-hawking.html

And what is gravity, seer?

[seer]

And what is gravity, seer?

You don't know what gravity is Jim? Or the law of gravity?

[JimL]

You don't know what gravity is Jim? Or the law of gravity?

It isn't exactly nothing is it?

[seer]

Also there is this....

https://www.ted.com/talks/harry_clif...end_of_physics

Very interesting link...

[seer]

It isn't exactly nothing is it?

The law of gravity is nothing, he did not say gravity.

[JimL]

The law of gravity is nothing, he did not say gravity.

Laws aren't anything in themselves, they're descriptive of things, or forces. If nothing exists, then the existence of laws makes no sense.

[seer]

Laws aren't anything in themselves, they descriptive of things, or forces. If nothing exists, then the existence of laws makes no sense.

Take it up with Hawking, well no you can't, he is dead.

[JimL]

Take it up with Hawking, well no you can't, he is dead.

Don't have to, it's common sense. Hawking probably assumed his audience possed it.

[seer]

Don't have to, it's common sense. Hawking probably assumed his audience possed it.

No Jim, look at what he actually said:

the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own"

The universe created ITSELF - not created from some pre-existing quantum soup. The only necessary thing is the LAW of gravity - he didn't say gravity.

[JimL]

No Jim, look at what he actually said:



The universe created ITSELF - not created from some pre-existing quantum soup. The only necessary thing is the LAW of gravity - he didn't say gravity.

Thats the difference between what we call something and what we call nothing. Empty space, or nothing but vacuum energy, unlike the universe or the things in it, is not seen as something, and it's from that nothing that Hawking claims that, due to the laws of physics, something comes. I mean, just stop and think seer, how can a law effect nothingness?

[seer]

Thats the difference between what we call something and what we call nothing. Empty space, or nothing but vacuum energy, unlike the universe or the things in it, is not seen as something, and it's from that nothing that Hawking claims that, due to the laws of physics, something comes. I mean, just stop and think seer, how can a law effect nothingness?

But that is exactly what he is saying Jim, I know you don't like it. THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF.

[JimL]

But that is exactly what he is saying Jim, I know you don't like it. THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF.

Seer, physical laws are laws, they are not things in themselves, they're descriptive of physical nature, they don't create physical nature, and even if physical laws did have some kind of platonic existence, without some physically existing thing for the laws to describe, or act upon, their existence would be superfluous. To argue that the physical laws created the material world out of nothing is, in my opinion, just as nutty as saying that god created the world out of nothing.

[seer]

Seer, physical laws are laws, they are not things in themselves, they're descriptive of physical nature, they don't create physical nature, and even if physical laws did have some kind of platonic existence, without some physically existing thing for the laws to describe, or act upon, their existence would be superfluous. To argue that the physical laws created the material world out of nothing is, in my opinion, just as nutty as saying that god created the world out of nothing.

Like I said take it up with Hawking. He is clear THE UNIVERSE CREATED ITSELF. Not that an energy vacuum created the universe.

[element771]

Thats the difference between what we call something and what we call nothing. Empty space, or nothing but vacuum energy, unlike the universe or the things in it, is not seen as something, and it's from that nothing that Hawking claims that, due to the laws of physics, something comes. I mean, just stop and think seer, how can a law effect nothingness?

But that is the problem no?

Current thinking is that the Big Bang is when matter, energy, and time first appeared. Without any understanding of something that precedes matter, energy, and time....how can we posit anything? There is no time. There is no matter for gravity to work on. There is no energy as even the presence of the vacuum energy hadn't come into existence yet. Hawkins last attempt at this was met with pretty harsh criticism from the physics community.

Now if you want to posit that our universe sprung from a more ancient "mother universe" fine...but how do you even know if the laws that govern our universe apply there? This is speculation built upon speculation built upon speculation.

Empty space by definition is not nothing. There is energy in the vacuum of space. And since E=mc^2, there may as well be matter there for those who think that energy is "nothing". We can't just change the definition of words when it suits us to sell books. A Universe from Nothing is a heck of a lot sexier than A Universe from the Vacuum Energy of Space.

And this idea that Krauss says that the physics nothing is different from the philosophical nothing is ridiculous. If that was true, why is there an alternative name for the "new nothing" which is the vacuum energy of space. If someone from the Discovery Institute pulled this crap, atheists would crucify them and rightfully so.

[carpedm9587]

But that is the problem no?

Current thinking is that the Big Bang is when matter, energy, and time first appeared. Without any understanding of something that precedes matter, energy, and time....how can we posit anything? There is no time. There is no matter for gravity to work on. There is no energy as even the presence of the vacuum energy hadn't come into existence yet. Hawkins last attempt at this was met with pretty harsh criticism from the physics community.

Now if you want to posit that our universe sprung from a more ancient "mother universe" fine...but how do you even know if the laws that govern our universe apply there? This is speculation built upon speculation built upon speculation.

Empty space by definition is not nothing. There is energy in the vacuum of space. And since E=mc^2, there may as well be matter there for those who think that energy is "nothing". We can't just change the definition of words when it suits us to sell books. A Universe from Nothing is a heck of a lot sexier than A Universe from the Vacuum Energy of Space.

And this idea that Krauss says that the physics nothing is different from the philosophical nothing is ridiculous. If that was true, why is there an alternative name for the "new nothing" which is the vacuum energy of space. If someone from the Discovery Institute pulled this crap, atheists would crucify them and rightfully so.

This post brings to mind an exchange I had in a different thread. Given your scientific background, I'd be curious about your response. My intent was to engage in a thought experiment for the following purpose: see if there was anything about a non-sentient creative force that was logically (or physically?) inconsistent. If it is not, then we can at least posit an possible alternative to "god did it." We cannot, of course, know if it is actual. So I proposed the following:

There exists a realm (I like your "motherverse" term) which is infinite and comprising "stuff" whose very nature is to be in motion. Nothing causes it to be in motion - and it has always been in motion. This motherverse is the first cause. Because the "stuff" that comprises this motherverse is in constant motion, it randomly creates regions of greater and lesses density. Every so often, a region in this infinite expanse becomes so dense, it spawns a singularity that drops into its own dimension, explodes, and gives rise to a universe. Because the motherverse is infinite, there have been an infinite number of these universes born. Some are born and immediately collapse. Some are born and rapidly expand into heat death. Some give rise to galaxies and stars, but remain barren. Some have exactly the right attributes to give rise to life, and some even to sentient life.

Obviously, we cannot prove this has happened. If such a scenario did exist, we would be trapped inside one of those universes with no way to see outside of it. The real question, to me, is "does this scenario defy anything we know about reason or physics or metaphysics? If not, then it is on the list of "could be." If so, then perhaps I need to more closely examine "god did it."

Or is the entire exercise, in your opinion, pointless?

I have found your posts to be informed, and guileless. I would value your perspective.